Advertisements

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
news:481c5f18$0$20192$...
> Freddie wrote:
>
>> I've just heard that Grisoft will not be providing updates for their
>> Free AVG as from the end of this month (May) Does anybody know
>> anything about this? Thanks for any replies.
>
> Did you check their web site?
>
> http://free.grisoft.com/ww.download-avg-anti-virus-free-edition
>
Many Thanks for the quick reply, I've just looked at the site you suggested,
but can't find the answer. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

"SJP" <> wrote in message
> "Freddie" <> wrote in message
> news:w%YSj.96894$...
>> I've just heard that Grisoft will not be providing updates for their Free
>> AVG as from the end of this month (May) Does anybody know anything about
>> this?
>> Thanks for any replies.
>>
>
> Not true as far as I know. Perhaps they are stopping updates for the old
> free version but they have only just released a free Version 8

Here is what: 94954lgb had to say about AVG 8: on a confirmation
to OP "Jack" Posted 4/25//2008 @ 8:45 pm. in this NG.

*Less*

NOTICE: AVG 8.0 IS DANGEROUS

WARNING: The new AVG 8.0 scans for many things in one program. It
now scans 'objects' for virus, adware, malware, phishing, bad links
and other things. AVG uses all the CPU it can acquire to scan and
runs the CPU very hard.

FYI... I have installed AVG 8.0 on several computers and ran a first
time scan on each.

The fastest laptop (1.6 GHz with 1024MB RAM) took one hour, 10 mins.
To scan 550,000 objects. CPU usage was 100% as was disk access. This
is too long to run that hard and heated up the laptop but not to
dangerous levels.

"*Less*" wrote in <news:bh%Sj.240414$pM4.197293@pd7urf1no>:
> Here is what: 94954lgb had to say about AVG 8: on a confirmation
> to OP "Jack" Posted 4/25//2008 @ 8:45 pm. in this NG.
>
> NOTICE: AVG 8.0 IS DANGEROUS
>
> WARNING: The new AVG 8.0 scans for many things in one program. It
> now scans 'objects' for virus, adware, malware, phishing, bad links
> and other things. AVG uses all the CPU it can acquire to scan and
> runs the CPU very hard.

Running at 100% is not a valid measurement by itself to indicate a
problem with a program regarding the concurrent use of the computer by
the user or other processes.
> FYI... I have installed AVG 8.0 on several computers and ran a first
> time scan on each.
>
> The fastest laptop (1.6 GHz with 1024MB RAM) took one hour, 10 mins.
> To scan 550,000 objects. CPU usage was 100% as was disk access.

Noting high CPU usage says nothing definite about impact on usability or
responsiveness of a host. Many programs will suck up 100% but run at
low priority. ANYTHING else that wants CPU time will get it and the
busy program goes dormant to wait for a second or two until high demand
goes away (any process with higher priority than itself). Some backups
and file indexing programs are like that: it looks like they are
slamming the CPU at 100% but they immediately get their time slice
relinquished when a higher priority tasks wants to work. So a better
measurement would be a program that is scripting to perform a series of
tasks that take a long time to complete while the process in question is
executing. Then you can see how much longer the "work" task takes to
complete with and without the high-CPU, low-priority program running.

So did this "reporter" ever mentioned at what priority the AVG processes
were running during the scan? No.
> This is too long to run that hard and heated up the laptop but not to
> dangerous levels.

If your hardware cannot endure 100% CPU usage and do so *constantly*
than it is crap that deserves to burn up.
>
> A Dell tower, 2.4 GHz with 768MB RAM, ran for almost 2 hours and
> scanned 990,000 objects.
>
> The slowest computer (900 MHz) with 512MB RAM was still running after
> 4 hours!! I stopped it at 440,000 'objects'.

So did this "tester" run the scan on non-executable files, too? Was was
the makeup of the fileset on which he tested? Were there thousands of
archive files with 30 levels of hierarchy in file organization to wade
through while also have to decompress on-the-fly? Where they mostly
huge 4GB, or bigger, video files or millions of small doc files?

Other than the poor specs provided for hardware (hardly usable for
comparing the hosts), were the setups identical regarding what services
and background programs were running? Was file indexing disabled on
each? Based the dearth of hardware, OS, and environment information,
the descriptions of the test hosts are way too vague.
> The slow computer's CPU was running 100% and the disk was close to
> that.

You expect a host to perform well with a disk that is close to 100%
full? Oh, and we're supposed to know how virtual memory was defined on
each host?
> This is DANGEROUS as the laptop was blazing HOT after running that
> long at high usage. Further, this will cause the computer to wear out
> sooner.

So the "logic" that AVG 8 is bad is that this "reporter" has really
crappy hardware that burns itself up when it is actually used. Oooh,
those deck screws are hazardous to that cheap screwdriver whose tip
breaks or bends when put under actual use. Uh huh. I bet this same
boob would report that CAD, Prime95, video software, and just about
anything else that makes use of 100% of his hardware is dangerous, too.
> I will be investigating what to do about this with AVG - you may want
> to HOLD OFF INSTALLING Version 8.0 for a while to see if AVG fixes
> this.

Fixes what? Your inability to use your laptop to its fullest? And
mostly because you claim the laptop is hot which is nondescriptive and
says nothing about the ability of the laptop to operate continuously at
100% at that higher temperature? Guess that means this "reporter" won't
be running any games on that crappy computer that cannot run
*continuously* at 100% CPU usage.

I'm not defending AVG by claiming that it isn't without problems. I
switched from AVG to Avast. What I'm saying is that claiming 100% CPU
usage alone means a program is "bad" exhibits ignorance. It
profilerates ignorance. I can't remember how many times some boob
claims that they don't have enough physical memory because most of it is
inuse and thinks they need a bunch of it sitting around unused as if
that is going help performance. 100% CPU usage is not a solitary
indicator of impact to usability and responsiveness of a host.

"VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
..
> "*Less*" wrote in <news:bh%Sj.240414$pM4.197293@pd7urf1no>:
>
>> Here is what: 94954lgb had to say about AVG 8: on a confirmation
>> to OP "Jack" Posted 4/25//2008 @ 8:45 pm. in this NG.
>>
>> NOTICE: AVG 8.0 IS DANGEROUS
>>
>> WARNING: The new AVG 8.0 scans for many things in one program. It
>> now scans 'objects' for virus, adware, malware, phishing, bad links
>> and other things. AVG uses all the CPU it can acquire to scan and
>> runs the CPU very hard.
>
> Running at 100% is not a valid measurement by itself to indicate a
> problem with a program regarding the concurrent use of the computer by
> the user or other processes.
>
>> FYI... I have installed AVG 8.0 on several computers and ran a first
>> time scan on each.
>>
>> The fastest laptop (1.6 GHz with 1024MB RAM) took one hour, 10 mins.
>> To scan 550,000 objects. CPU usage was 100% as was disk access.
>
> Noting high CPU usage says nothing definite about impact on usability or
> responsiveness of a host. Many programs will suck up 100% but run at
> low priority. ANYTHING else that wants CPU time will get it and the
> busy program goes dormant to wait for a second or two until high demand
> goes away (any process with higher priority than itself). Some backups
> and file indexing programs are like that: it looks like they are
> slamming the CPU at 100% but they immediately get their time slice
> relinquished when a higher priority tasks wants to work. So a better
> measurement would be a program that is scripting to perform a series of
> tasks that take a long time to complete while the process in question is
> executing. Then you can see how much longer the "work" task takes to
> complete with and without the high-CPU, low-priority program running.
>
> So did this "reporter" ever mentioned at what priority the AVG processes
> were running during the scan? No.
>
>> This is too long to run that hard and heated up the laptop but not to
>> dangerous levels.
>
> If your hardware cannot endure 100% CPU usage and do so *constantly*
> than it is crap that deserves to burn up.
>
>>
>> A Dell tower, 2.4 GHz with 768MB RAM, ran for almost 2 hours and
>> scanned 990,000 objects.
>>
>> The slowest computer (900 MHz) with 512MB RAM was still running after
>> 4 hours!! I stopped it at 440,000 'objects'.
>
> So did this "tester" run the scan on non-executable files, too? Was was
> the makeup of the fileset on which he tested? Were there thousands of
> archive files with 30 levels of hierarchy in file organization to wade
> through while also have to decompress on-the-fly? Where they mostly
> huge 4GB, or bigger, video files or millions of small doc files?
>
> Other than the poor specs provided for hardware (hardly usable for
> comparing the hosts), were the setups identical regarding what services
> and background programs were running? Was file indexing disabled on
> each? Based the dearth of hardware, OS, and environment information,
> the descriptions of the test hosts are way too vague.
>
>> The slow computer's CPU was running 100% and the disk was close to
>> that.
>
> You expect a host to perform well with a disk that is close to 100%
> full? Oh, and we're supposed to know how virtual memory was defined on
> each host?
>
>> This is DANGEROUS as the laptop was blazing HOT after running that
>> long at high usage. Further, this will cause the computer to wear out
>> sooner.
>
> So the "logic" that AVG 8 is bad is that this "reporter" has really
> crappy hardware that burns itself up when it is actually used. Oooh,
> those deck screws are hazardous to that cheap screwdriver whose tip
> breaks or bends when put under actual use. Uh huh. I bet this same
> boob would report that CAD, Prime95, video software, and just about
> anything else that makes use of 100% of his hardware is dangerous, too.
>
>> I will be investigating what to do about this with AVG - you may want
>> to HOLD OFF INSTALLING Version 8.0 for a while to see if AVG fixes
>> this.
>
> Fixes what? Your inability to use your laptop to its fullest? And
> mostly because you claim the laptop is hot which is nondescriptive and
> says nothing about the ability of the laptop to operate continuously at
> 100% at that higher temperature? Guess that means this "reporter" won't
> be running any games on that crappy computer that cannot run
> *continuously* at 100% CPU usage.
>
> I'm not defending AVG by claiming that it isn't without problems. I
> switched from AVG to Avast. What I'm saying is that claiming 100% CPU
> usage alone means a program is "bad" exhibits ignorance. It
> profilerates ignorance. I can't remember how many times some boob
> claims that they don't have enough physical memory because most of it is
> inuse and thinks they need a bunch of it sitting around unused as if
> that is going help performance. 100% CPU usage is not a solitary
> indicator of impact to usability and responsiveness of a host.

Thank you Vanguard,

for taking the time to clarify the false alarm, I also use Avast 4.8 Pro.
I was concerned about <94954lgb> post because my Brother
and a couple Friends of mine use AVG. free Version.

"*Less*" wrote in <news:AGaTj.113660$Cj7.10391@pd7urf2no>:
> "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
> .
>> "*Less*" wrote in <news:bh%Sj.240414$pM4.197293@pd7urf1no>:
>>
>>> Here is what: 94954lgb had to say about AVG 8: on a confirmation
>>> to OP "Jack" Posted 4/25//2008 @ 8:45 pm. in this NG.
>>>
>>> NOTICE: AVG 8.0 IS DANGEROUS
>>>
>>> WARNING: The new AVG 8.0 scans for many things in one program. It
>>> now scans 'objects' for virus, adware, malware, phishing, bad links
>>> and other things. AVG uses all the CPU it can acquire to scan and
>>> runs the CPU very hard.
>>
>> Running at 100% is not a valid measurement by itself to indicate a
>> problem with a program regarding the concurrent use of the computer by
>> the user or other processes.
>>
>>> FYI... I have installed AVG 8.0 on several computers and ran a first
>>> time scan on each.
>>>
>>> The fastest laptop (1.6 GHz with 1024MB RAM) took one hour, 10 mins.
>>> To scan 550,000 objects. CPU usage was 100% as was disk access.
>>
>> Noting high CPU usage says nothing definite about impact on usability or
>> responsiveness of a host. Many programs will suck up 100% but run at
>> low priority. ANYTHING else that wants CPU time will get it and the
>> busy program goes dormant to wait for a second or two until high demand
>> goes away (any process with higher priority than itself). Some backups
>> and file indexing programs are like that: it looks like they are
>> slamming the CPU at 100% but they immediately get their time slice
>> relinquished when a higher priority tasks wants to work. So a better
>> measurement would be a program that is scripting to perform a series of
>> tasks that take a long time to complete while the process in question is
>> executing. Then you can see how much longer the "work" task takes to
>> complete with and without the high-CPU, low-priority program running.
>>
>> So did this "reporter" ever mentioned at what priority the AVG processes
>> were running during the scan? No.
>>
>>> This is too long to run that hard and heated up the laptop but not to
>>> dangerous levels.
>>
>> If your hardware cannot endure 100% CPU usage and do so *constantly*
>> than it is crap that deserves to burn up.
>>
>>>
>>> A Dell tower, 2.4 GHz with 768MB RAM, ran for almost 2 hours and
>>> scanned 990,000 objects.
>>>
>>> The slowest computer (900 MHz) with 512MB RAM was still running after
>>> 4 hours!! I stopped it at 440,000 'objects'.
>>
>> So did this "tester" run the scan on non-executable files, too? Was was
>> the makeup of the fileset on which he tested? Were there thousands of
>> archive files with 30 levels of hierarchy in file organization to wade
>> through while also have to decompress on-the-fly? Where they mostly
>> huge 4GB, or bigger, video files or millions of small doc files?
>>
>> Other than the poor specs provided for hardware (hardly usable for
>> comparing the hosts), were the setups identical regarding what services
>> and background programs were running? Was file indexing disabled on
>> each? Based the dearth of hardware, OS, and environment information,
>> the descriptions of the test hosts are way too vague.
>>
>>> The slow computer's CPU was running 100% and the disk was close to
>>> that.
>>
>> You expect a host to perform well with a disk that is close to 100%
>> full? Oh, and we're supposed to know how virtual memory was defined on
>> each host?
>>
>>> This is DANGEROUS as the laptop was blazing HOT after running that
>>> long at high usage. Further, this will cause the computer to wear out
>>> sooner.
>>
>> So the "logic" that AVG 8 is bad is that this "reporter" has really
>> crappy hardware that burns itself up when it is actually used. Oooh,
>> those deck screws are hazardous to that cheap screwdriver whose tip
>> breaks or bends when put under actual use. Uh huh. I bet this same
>> boob would report that CAD, Prime95, video software, and just about
>> anything else that makes use of 100% of his hardware is dangerous, too.
>>
>>> I will be investigating what to do about this with AVG - you may want
>>> to HOLD OFF INSTALLING Version 8.0 for a while to see if AVG fixes
>>> this.
>>
>> Fixes what? Your inability to use your laptop to its fullest? And
>> mostly because you claim the laptop is hot which is nondescriptive and
>> says nothing about the ability of the laptop to operate continuously at
>> 100% at that higher temperature? Guess that means this "reporter" won't
>> be running any games on that crappy computer that cannot run
>> *continuously* at 100% CPU usage.
>>
>> I'm not defending AVG by claiming that it isn't without problems. I
>> switched from AVG to Avast. What I'm saying is that claiming 100% CPU
>> usage alone means a program is "bad" exhibits ignorance. It
>> profilerates ignorance. I can't remember how many times some boob
>> claims that they don't have enough physical memory because most of it is
>> inuse and thinks they need a bunch of it sitting around unused as if
>> that is going help performance. 100% CPU usage is not a solitary
>> indicator of impact to usability and responsiveness of a host.
>
> Thank you Vanguard,
>
> for taking the time to clarify the false alarm, I also use Avast 4.8 Pro.
> I was concerned about <94954lgb> post because my Brother
> and a couple Friends of mine use AVG. free Version.
>
> *Less*

A high-priority task, especially one ran at real-time priority, might
only consume a little CPU usage but completely lockup the host. A
malware scanner that is saturating the data bus during a scan might only
use low CPU usage but still effectively lockup or otherwise interfere
with reasonable use of a host. In fact, I've used many applications
that will run at low priority that smack the CPU usage meter to 100% but
they go immediately dormant if I move the mouse or tap a key or if a
higher-priority job wants more time.

"VanguardLH" <> wrote in message ..
> "*Less*" wrote in <news:AGaTj.113660$Cj7.10391@pd7urf2no>:

<Snip>
>>> I'm not defending AVG by claiming that it isn't without problems. I
>>> switched from AVG to Avast. What I'm saying is that claiming 100% CPU
>>> usage alone means a program is "bad" exhibits ignorance. It
>>> profilerates ignorance. I can't remember how many times some boob
>>> claims that they don't have enough physical memory because most of it is
>>> inuse and thinks they need a bunch of it sitting around unused as if
>>> that is going help performance. 100% CPU usage is not a solitary
>>> indicator of impact to usability and responsiveness of a host.
>>
>> Thank you Vanguard,
>>
>> for taking the time to clarify the false alarm, I also use Avast 4.8 Pro.
>> I was concerned about <94954lgb> post because my Brother
>> and a couple Friends of mine use AVG. free Version.
>>
>> *Less*
>
> A high-priority task, especially one ran at real-time priority, might
> only consume a little CPU usage but completely lockup the host. A
> malware scanner that is saturating the data bus during a scan might only
> use low CPU usage but still effectively lockup or otherwise interfere
> with reasonable use of a host. In fact, I've used many applications
> that will run at low priority that smack the CPU usage meter to 100% but
> they go immediately dormant if I move the mouse or tap a key or if a
> higher-priority job wants more time.

I have used Process Explorer a couple times to see which apps.
are running on the background, never tried to monitor the CPU usage
during a virus scan. As you are aware of Avast has a Boot Scan
option that's the one I use most of the times, and when I run Avast
for a virus scan I go for coffee because Windows is under Avast anesthetic,
and I do not bother monitoring the CPU usage like <94954lgb> does.

On May 3, 5:36 pm, "Freddie" <> wrote:
> I've just heard that Grisoft will not be providing updates for their Free
> AVG as from the end of this month (May) Does anybody know anything about
> this?
> Thanks for any replies.

yes its true. AVG will not provide updates for free avg8.0.

i will give u the key for AVG antivirus8.0.this key works for 8
months.its true.

On May 3, 6:07 pm, "Freddie" <> wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in messagenews:481c5f18$0$20192$...> Freddie wrote:
>
> >> I've just heard that Grisoft will not be providing updates for their
> >> Free AVG as from the end of this month (May) Does anybody know
> >> anything about this? Thanks for any replies.
>
> > Did you check their web site?
>
> >http://free.grisoft.com/ww.download-avg-anti-virus-free-edition
>
> Many Thanks for the quick reply, I've just looked at the site you suggested,
> but can't find the answer. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

yes its true. AVG will not provide updates for free avg8.0.

i will give u the key for AVG antivirus8.0.this key works for 8
months.its true.

On May 3, 6:21 pm, "SJP" <> wrote:
> "Freddie" <> wrote in message
>
> news:w%YSj.96894$...
>
> > I've just heard that Grisoft will not be providing updates for their Free
> > AVG as from the end of this month (May) Does anybody know anything about
> > this?
> > Thanks for any replies.
>
> Not true as far as I know. Perhaps they are stopping updates for the old
> free version but they have only just released a free Version 8

yes its true. AVG will not provide updates for free avg8.0.

i will give u the key for AVG antivirus8.0.this key works for 8
months.its true.

On May 3, 8:12 pm, "*Less*" <**> wrote:
> "SJP" <> wrote in message
> > "Freddie" <> wrote in message
> >news:w%YSj.96894$...
> >> I've just heard that Grisoft will not be providing updates for their Free
> >> AVG as from the end of this month (May) Does anybody know anything about
> >> this?
> >> Thanks for any replies.
>
> > Not true as far as I know. Perhaps they are stopping updates for the old
> > free version but they have only just released a free Version 8
>
> Here is what: 94954lgb had to say about AVG 8: on a confirmation
> to OP "Jack" Posted 4/25//2008 @ 8:45 pm. in this NG.
>
> *Less*
>
> NOTICE: AVG 8.0 IS DANGEROUS
>
> WARNING: The new AVG 8.0 scans for many things in one program. It
> now scans 'objects' for virus, adware, malware, phishing, bad links
> and other things. AVG uses all the CPU it can acquire to scan and
> runs the CPU very hard.
>
> FYI... I have installed AVG 8.0 on several computers and ran a first
> time scan on each.
>
> The fastest laptop (1.6 GHz with 1024MB RAM) took one hour, 10 mins.
> To scan 550,000 objects. CPU usage was 100% as was disk access. This
> is too long to run that hard and heated up the laptop but not to
> dangerous levels.
>
> A Dell tower, 2.4 GHz with 768MB RAM, ran for almost 2 hours and
> scanned 990,000 objects.
>
> The slowest computer (900 MHz) with 512MB RAM was still running after
> 4 hours!! I stopped it at 440,000 'objects'.
>
> The slow computer's CPU was running 100% and the disk was close to
> that.
>
> This is DANGEROUS as the laptop was blazing HOT after running that
> long at high usage. Further, this will cause the computer to wear out
> sooner.
>
> I will be investigating what to do about this with AVG - you may want
> to HOLD OFF INSTALLING Version 8.0 for a while to see if AVG fixes
> this.
>
> If AVG cannot fix this - it may be time to scout out another anti-
> virus scanning program.
>
> I suppose one could remove 8.0 and download the prior version 7.5
> until a resolution is found.

yes its true. AVG will not provide updates for free avg8.0.

i will give u the key for AVG antivirus8.0.this key works for 8
months.its true.

On May 3, 11:09 pm, "*Less*" <**> wrote:
> "Sean_Q_" <> wrote in message
>
> ..
>
> > *Less* wrote:
>
> >> I suppose one could remove 8.0 and download the prior version 7.5
> >> until a resolution is found.
>
> > Where can I get version 7.5?
>
> Try here:http://tinyurl.com/6zeh9g Some Links advertise AVG 7.5 Version,
> but when you log on you will find version 8.1, so be carefull.
>
> *Less*
>
> > SQ
>
> Hello Sean,
>
> I did not quote the above, all I wrote is the following:
>
> >Here is what: 94954lgb had to say about AVG 8: on a confirmation
> >to OP "Jack" Posted 4/25//2008 @ 8:45 pm. in this NG.
> >*Less*
>
> What follows below my name is from: <94954lgb> you could find him/her
> by looking for the Post under the name <Jack>
> Posted 4/25//2008 @ 8:45 pm. in this NG. hope this helps.
>
> *Less*

yes its true. AVG will not provide updates for free avg8.0.

i will give u the key for AVG antivirus8.0.this key works for 8
months.its true.

On May 4, 6:11 am, VanguardLH <> wrote:
> "*Less*" wrote in <news:bh%Sj.240414$pM4.197293@pd7urf1no>:
>
> > Here is what: 94954lgb had to say about AVG 8: on a confirmation
> > to OP "Jack" Posted 4/25//2008 @ 8:45 pm. in this NG.
>
> > NOTICE: AVG 8.0 IS DANGEROUS
>
> > WARNING: The new AVG 8.0 scans for many things in one program. It
> > now scans 'objects' for virus, adware, malware, phishing, bad links
> > and other things. AVG uses all the CPU it can acquire to scan and
> > runs the CPU very hard.
>
> Running at 100% is not a valid measurement by itself to indicate a
> problem with a program regarding the concurrent use of the computer by
> the user or other processes.
>
> > FYI... I have installed AVG 8.0 on several computers and ran a first
> > time scan on each.
>
> > The fastest laptop (1.6 GHz with 1024MB RAM) took one hour, 10 mins.
> > To scan 550,000 objects. CPU usage was 100% as was disk access.
>
> Noting high CPU usage says nothing definite about impact on usability or
> responsiveness of a host. Many programs will suck up 100% but run at
> low priority. ANYTHING else that wants CPU time will get it and the
> busy program goes dormant to wait for a second or two until high demand
> goes away (any process with higher priority than itself). Some backups
> and file indexing programs are like that: it looks like they are
> slamming the CPU at 100% but they immediately get their time slice
> relinquished when a higher priority tasks wants to work. So a better
> measurement would be a program that is scripting to perform a series of
> tasks that take a long time to complete while the process in question is
> executing. Then you can see how much longer the "work" task takes to
> complete with and without the high-CPU, low-priority program running.
>
> So did this "reporter" ever mentioned at what priority the AVG processes
> were running during the scan? No.
>
> > This is too long to run that hard and heated up the laptop but not to
> > dangerous levels.
>
> If your hardware cannot endure 100% CPU usage and do so *constantly*
> than it is crap that deserves to burn up.
>
>
>
> > A Dell tower, 2.4 GHz with 768MB RAM, ran for almost 2 hours and
> > scanned 990,000 objects.
>
> > The slowest computer (900 MHz) with 512MB RAM was still running after
> > 4 hours!! I stopped it at 440,000 'objects'.
>
> So did this "tester" run the scan on non-executable files, too? Was was
> the makeup of the fileset on which he tested? Were there thousands of
> archive files with 30 levels of hierarchy in file organization to wade
> through while also have to decompress on-the-fly? Where they mostly
> huge 4GB, or bigger, video files or millions of small doc files?
>
> Other than the poor specs provided for hardware (hardly usable for
> comparing the hosts), were the setups identical regarding what services
> and background programs were running? Was file indexing disabled on
> each? Based the dearth of hardware, OS, and environment information,
> the descriptions of the test hosts are way too vague.
>
> > The slow computer's CPU was running 100% and the disk was close to
> > that.
>
> You expect a host to perform well with a disk that is close to 100%
> full? Oh, and we're supposed to know how virtual memory was defined on
> each host?
>
> > This is DANGEROUS as the laptop was blazing HOT after running that
> > long at high usage. Further, this will cause the computer to wear out
> > sooner.
>
> So the "logic" that AVG 8 is bad is that this "reporter" has really
> crappy hardware that burns itself up when it is actually used. Oooh,
> those deck screws are hazardous to that cheap screwdriver whose tip
> breaks or bends when put under actual use. Uh huh. I bet this same
> boob would report that CAD, Prime95, video software, and just about
> anything else that makes use of 100% of his hardware is dangerous, too.
>
> > I will be investigating what to do about this with AVG - you may want
> > to HOLD OFF INSTALLING Version 8.0 for a while to see if AVG fixes
> > this.
>
> Fixes what? Your inability to use your laptop to its fullest? And
> mostly because you claim the laptop is hot which is nondescriptive and
> says nothing about the ability of the laptop to operate continuously at
> 100% at that higher temperature? Guess that means this "reporter" won't
> be running any games on that crappy computer that cannot run
> *continuously* at 100% CPU usage.
>
> I'm not defending AVG by claiming that it isn't without problems. I
> switched from AVG to Avast. What I'm saying is that claiming 100% CPU
> usage alone means a program is "bad" exhibits ignorance. It
> profilerates ignorance. I can't remember how many times some boob
> claims that they don't have enough physical memory because most of it is
> inuse and thinks they need a bunch of it sitting around unused as if
> that is going help performance. 100% CPU usage is not a solitary
> indicator of impact to usability and responsiveness of a host.
yes its true. AVG will not provide updates for free avg8.0.

i will give u the key for AVG antivirus8.0.this key works for 8
months.its true.

On May 6, 10:48 am, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:
> Freddie wrote:
>
> > I've just heard that Grisoft will not be providing updates for their Free
> > AVG as from the end of this month (May) Does anybody know anything about
> > this?
>
> The trend for anti-virus companies is to start charging for downloads
> and updates.
>
> --http://www.bootdisk.com/

yes its true. AVG will not provide updates for free avg8.0.

i will give u the key for AVG antivirus8.0.this key works for 8
months.its true.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!